Wednesday, December 09, 2015

Guns and the fruitless search for moral authority

For the first time since 1920
the New York Times put an editorial
on its front page calling on the U.S. to ‘End the Gun Epidemic in America.’ The
editorial came in the wake of an Islamic terror attack by a husband and wife
team in San Bernardino, California that killed 14 people and wounded 21 others.

The bodies were still warm
when the name of the lead suspect in the massacre was made public, and the New York Times played dumb for a few
days. The paper first noted that the suspects left “no clear motive” but a day
later said that terrorism was an “aspect” of the investigation. After every
other newspaper in the world said it was terrorist attack, the Times noted that
the F.B.I. was treating it like one. Watching the Gray Lady perform the mental gymnastics of wondering aloud
about the motive of these shooters over several days was sad to see. Don’t hurt
yourself thinking too hard, New York
Times, most of us had it figured out early.

But while the newspaper of
record was too chickenshit to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack, it
wasted no time in its front page editorial painting the exercise of Americans’
constitutional rights as a “moral outrage and national disgrace.” The editorial
called for “eliminating large categories of weapons and ammunition” and saying
that citizens would have to surrender some of their arms “for the good of their
fellow citizens.”

What’s galling about the Times’ editorial, among other things, is
that the motive of religious terrorists was very relevant when a Christian
fundamentalist shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic, but somehow discussing
motive is shameful of the wake of the latest Islamic terrorist attack within
our borders. The anti-abortion crazy who killed three people at the women’s
clinic was spurred in part by anti-abortion propaganda that hinged on
fraudulent videos. It’s not anti-Christian bigotry to call out the role of
religious extremism in the Colorado terror attack, but somehow Islamic
extremism isn’t quite news fit to print, at least for a few days and then
qualified by citing the F.B.I.

There are a lot of issues
that need to be discussed in the wake of this terror attack. We need to have a
more restrictive and security-driven immigration system. Muslim Americans are moresusceptible to violent religious fanaticism than people of other religions and rooting out these
elements is going to be a very tough and brutal effort.

But the culture war dictates
that the guncontrol issue is pushed to the
fore. So let’s address it then.

What gun control advocates don’t understand is that gun ownership is an integral part of America.
We wouldn’t have America without individuals owning guns and it’s no
coincidence that the first British troops fired upon in Lexington and Concord
were there to confiscate guns. The Second Amendment gives the right to bear
arms to “The People” and cites the need for a militia because our country’s
founders didn’t want what we already have: a standing military with bases in
more than 100 countries. The authors of the Second Amendment viewed such professional
militaries as a threat to democracy. Getting rid of “certain kinds of guns” is
going to be fruitless because technology will not stop developing and there are
already many guns on the market that straddle the line between hunting weapons
and assault rifle explicitly for this purpose. We can’t eliminate the
right to bear arms without amending the Constitution, and anyone who wants only
the police and military to have
guns is either extremely naïve or harbors some kind of odd uniform fetish.

What some of my fellow gun enthusiasts don’t
understand is that we already have
the worst of both worlds. Our guns aren’t stopping the government from undemocratic policies and we have
horrible levels of violent crime. If the government wants your name they are
going to have it, and it won’t take them long to find our guns if we bury them.
The law enforcement officers or soldiers we’d be fighting are often gun
enthusiasts themselves so I don’t see some great gun confiscation coming,
despite the wishes of the editorial scribes of the New York Times.

So here is a solution
that might actually work if it’s ever implemented. What would work is to
have one federal system for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the
mentally ill and extremists. This would be one standard for the entire country.
One set of rules for everyone to follow. It would mean passing a basic safety
course and background check, and making sure that there were proper training
for different weapons (e.g. - operating an assault rifle takes more training,
especially with models like the AR-15 so popular in the U.S.). There are safety
and security protocols everyone must follow and these would be subject to spot
inspections in order to keep your certification. A basic mental health
evaluation would be included. How this entices gun owners and manufacturers is
that this would END the bans on assault rifles and “high capacity” magazines
popular in many liberal states. It would END the absurd and unconstitutional
red tape that many cities and states put around the exercise of our
constitutional rights (the cost of the gun permit in New York City is more
expensive than many guns).

Trying to take entire classes of guns and ammunition out of
Americans’ hand is not only going to be unconstitutional but unsuccessful. But
creating a system that both embraces our rights and regulates against the very
real danger of violent crime will be a welcome solution.

No comments:

About Me

I write a column called 'Notes from a Polite New Yorker' as well as short stories and poems. My column appears monthly in Kotori Magazine and my writing has appeared in GetUnderground.com, Knot Magazine, The Black Table, Too Square, and other web sites and print publications.